I've been reading the various reaction pieces this morning. What I'd like to know is how this is being spun in Ukrainian and Russian media - I haven't found any English-language analysis of this yet. This piece over at RealClearPolitics gives a pretty interesting take on how it looked from the inside.
In reply to Beer Baron 🍺 :
A transaction should also take into account future benefits - in this case, not only for the US but for the entire world. If Ukraine falls, Putin's next step will be aggression towards other countries in the area, as he attempts to recreate the Soviet Union. China will feel emboldened to finally invade Taiwan. Who knows what Iran and North Korea will do.
In reply to stuart in mn :
I agree with you. There are MANY reasons why we should help Ukraine. From a moral view, a pragmatic view, and a global competition view, helping Ukraine is the right thing.
But none of these reasons factor into the purely transactional view of, "What is Ukraine going to do for the U.S. in return?"
None of them have to do with any "cards" that Zelensky is holding. He doesn't have any. If that is what these negotiations hinge on, they will fail.
The time to "win" this war was through strength and determent BEFORE it began. The world watched and stood by for the months while Russia/Putin assumed his army along the border.
We are already in "Zero sum" or lose situation. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost.
I don't know how we get there, but it's time for Peace.
I hope we can get there with minimal additional blood shed.
In reply to stuart in mn :
You're quite right, but it is much more difficult to conceptualize future benefits than it is immediate, narrow ones, especially negative ones (negative here meaning actions not taken, as in it being a benefit if China does not invade Taiwan). Incremental, concrete steps are commonly used to build trust between parties; consider the prisoner exchanges before the US-Russia talks in Saudi Arabia. Granted, a large-scale minerals deal is not a small thing, but the US-Ukraine relationship had already been much more established.
I do not agree, however, that the current disruption will have the broad universal impacts you suggest. If anything, China will be increasingly concerned about US-Russian rapprochement. Iran and North Korea are badly constrained by their domestic and regional situations; Iran, in particular, has all eyes on Israel right now.
In reply to Indy - Guy :
It's easy to say with hindsight now that all of NATO should've been stationed on the Ukrainian side of the border ready for the first Russian troops to roll across, but it was also something of an intelligence failure in the West as there was a lot of talk at the time that Putin was going to do some kind of mock attack exercise like China frequently does to Taiwan or possibly even just go home after freaking the West out for attention with the troop buildup. Also in terms of deterrence, a factor that very few people seem to be aware of was that the scheduled first delivery of lethal aid to Ukraine was delayed from 2019 to 2022 (I'll leave why out of this thread, DefenseNews wrote a good article on it at the time), by which time Russia had already started massing troops at the border. This not only made Ukraine look like a safer target by leaving them materially less prepared, but perhaps showed cracks in US-Ukraine ties leading Russia to underestimate the level of support they'd receive, all of which helped Russia see invading Ukraine as a decent idea.
That said, with the massive disconnect between reality and Russia's expectations, we also have to consider how much improving the reality of the situation would've altered them. Maybe any improvements short of massing all of NATO on the border would only have made Putin's advisors tell him it would take 6 days to take the capitol instead of 3.
Why would NATO be in a defensive position protecting a non-member country? That doesn't make sense.
As much as my sentiments favor Zelensky in general, it seems that he allowed himself to be drawn into yesterdays mess, and that was something of a fail on his part. But Zelensky does hold cards - namely the resilience, toughness and craftiness of his people, and the support of Europe, who better understand the stakes than most who sit behind a moat thousands of miles wide.
In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :
Yeah I didn't mean it as a serious proposal but as an example of what it would've taken to put a definite stop the invasion before it started. Something like it could've happened if a bunch of different NATO countries all independently decided to send troops, maybe if they had better intel on Putin's plans.
In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :
The stakes for Europe are quite different than for the US, just as the stakes for Britain are different than they are for Germany than they are for Poland. Each government is acting as they see fit for their own individual interests; that's why countries further east, with more recent experience with Russia, have been tending to take their defense commitments more seriously for longer. It's also why "European policy" is a bit of an absurdity - they're each on their own path, which sometimes converge, but they're hardly unified.
It's worth noting that of the Europeans, the current US administration holds up Poland as the model ally - certainly not something it would do if it were purely out to undermine Ukraine's position and support Russia's.
There is a saying in negotiations. If you get what you wanted, you paid too much. If you didn't get it, you offered too little. Very rarely is something exchanged for the "right" price. But if both sides want to do the deal, they will come back to the table with counter offers until they get close enough that they close the deal. That's what we saw yesterday, since it was made public.
The complication on this deal is that from the U.S. point of view, it's irrelevant if the larger peace deal is not reached. Access to minerals doesn't do us any good in an active war zone, and if Ukraine loses, that access is lost too. So concessions that sink the chances of the larger peace deal- like NATO membership- have to be off the table.
It's great to help someone on the side of the road. But you need to be aware of the whole situation. No shoulder, next to a busy freeway, late at night- you are putting yourself and whoever is in your car in danger. You are better off calling for help or offering them a ride to a safer location while they wait for help. If it is in a safe space, sure you can help them with the tire. But if the car is a rolling death trap- no brakes, ball joints failing, fuel leaking out- fixing that tire would likely put them and the drivers around them in greater danger. You need to fix everything or decline to fix the tire. I think that is the choice that the U.S. is in right now. The car is in a precarious location and needs a lot of work. The peace deal gets the car towed to a safe location where they have more time to fix it right. It is the safest option but is going to cost the owner more. Increased assistance is fixing the car on the side of the road. It's more risky but may get them home at a lower cost. Just fixing the flat is maintaining the stalemate, likely to result in a poor outcome. Of course, not helping at all may likely get them taken out by a semi that drifts out of their lane. The hope is that risk convinces them to just have it towed.
You'll need to log in to post.
